CTNF 18/721,940 CTNF 78581 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 June 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449. Drawings The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5, 10-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5 and 10-12 each describe: “the first and second metal layers are formed apart from the core. ” (emphasis added). Claim 1, from which each of Claims 5 and 10-12depend, describes: “first and second metal layers each formed in contact with both side surfaces of the core. ” (emphasis added) It is not clear how the metal layers may be “formed apart” from the core while simultaneously “in contact with both surfaces of the core.” Therefore, the current claim language is indefinite. Claim 16 depends from Claim 5 and fails to remedy this indefiniteness. For examination purposes, any first and second metal layers that are distinct from the core shall be considered to anticipate the limitations of Claims 5, 10-12, and 16. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0081204 A1 to Ma et al. (“US1”) in view of o WIPO Internation Application 2014/199831 to Jungo et al. (“WO1”), cited in Applicant’s IDS. Please note that any text citations to WO1 will be in reference to the English translation submitted by Applicant . Regarding Claim 1, US1 describes an optical device (see Fig 10 and [0074]-[0078]) comprising: a slab layer (1006) made of an electro-optic material having an electro-optic effect; a core (1001) formed on the slab layer and made of the same electro-optic material as the slab layer; and first and second metal layers (1002) each formed in contact with both side surfaces of the core; wherein the electro-optic material is an inorganic material (see [0047], [0074]), wherein the first and second metal layers are made of a noble metal (see [0047], [0074]), and wherein the core, the first metal layer, and the second metal layer form a plasmonic optical waveguide (see [0074]). US1 does not describe an adhesion layer formed between the slab layer on both sides of the core and the first and second metal layers. WO1 describes an optical device (see Figs 9-10 and Pg 7 ¶ 11-Pg 8 ¶ 8) comprising: a slab layer made of an electro-optic material having an electro-optic effect (6, “optical crystal” see Pg 8 ¶ 4); a core (8) formed on the slab; a metal layer (“metal film” see Pg 8 ¶ 7); and an adhesion layer (“buffer layer” see Pg 8 ¶ 7) formed between the slab and the metal layer and formed to improve adhesion between the slab layer and layer, wherein the electro-optic material is an inorganic material (see Pg 8 ¶ 4) , wherein the first and second metal layers are made of a noble metal (see Pg 8 ¶ 7). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the adhesive layer of WO1 between the slab and the metal layers of US1 as situated in Fig 10 of US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve adhesion of the metals to the slab (see WO1 at Pg 8 ¶ 7). Regarding Claim 2, US1 describes the electro-optic material as lithium niobate or barium titanate (see [0047], [0074]). WO1 describes the electro-optic material as lithium niobate (see Pg 8 ¶ 4). Regarding Claims 3 and 7, US1 and WO1 describe the first and second metal layers made of Au or Ag (see US1 at [0047], [0074] and WO1 at Pg 8 ¶ 7). Regarding Claims 4 and 8-9, WO1 describes the adhesion layer made of Cr or Ti (see Pg 8 ¶ 7). Regarding Claims 5 and 10-12, being interpreted as discussed above, US1 describes the first and second metal layers are formed apart from the core (see [0074]). Regarding Claims 6 and 13-16, US1 describes the slab layer and the core as integrated (see Fig 10 and [0074]-[0075]). Conclusion The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art describes various optical devices with waveguides and metal layers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/721,940 Page 2 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/721,940 Page 3 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/721,940 Page 4 Art Unit: 2874 Application/Control Number: 18/721,940 Page 5 Art Unit: 2874
Prosecution Insights